ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from New York.

Let`s get to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Tonight, surveillance showdown.

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, (R) HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: We are living in dangerous time. The best way to make sure America is protected is for the Senate to past the USA Freedom.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: We also have to maintain our constitutional rights and the rights for privacy.

SCHULTZ: Plus, trade secrets.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The negotiations have been secret.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wikileaks is raising $100,000 reward for the missing chapters on Americas most wanted secret, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

SCHULTZ: Later, TSA failures.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: TSA screener failing 95 percent of the time even during the pat down. The screening officer failed to find a fake explosive taken undercover agents back.

SCHULTZ: And soccer shocker.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: FIFA president Sepp Blatter once considered untouchable had announce his stepping down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Good to have with you us tonight folks. Thanks for watching.

We start with Breaking News on the way the NSA conducts surveillance. Moments ago the Senate passed the House version of the USA Freedom Act. The bill is now headed to President Obama`s desk and will probably be signed tonight. That the bill puts the mass collection of telephone data in the hands of phone companies instead of the government. The irony here is of course the Republicans love the work in the private sector. Well, they`re going to get a chance to do it.

It brings major reforms to our way the government conduct surveillance, the Freedom Act also bring some transparency to the mostly secret FISA Court. Some in the Senate aren`t so happy with this version of the bill, but they voted for it. It passed by a number of 67 to 32. The Senate killed a number of amendments to the Freedom Act before today`s final vote.

These amendments called by some a poisoned pill. They would have sent the bill back to the House where it would likely have been killed. Now the first amendment that they`ve voted on today would have gutted the bills effort on FISA Court transparency. They can`t operate in secret.

Now the second amendment would have lengthened the transition period from six months to one year. The final two amendments would have required phone companies to notify the government before changing data storage policies and require the NSA to certify companies have transition properly.

Now Republicans mostly supported these amendments. Today was filled with debate on the Senate floor. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, he led the charge in support of the Freedom Act.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, (D) VERMONT: Bring much-needed reform the government surveillance authorities. You know, in bulk collect Americans` phone records. You know, increase transparency, you know, improve oversight, most importantly help restore American privacy. However (ph), ensure you intelligence community has what they need.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Meanwhile Republicans are pushing hard for these amendments today even though it probably would have died over in the House.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took a pretty good swipe in the President said "He`s not sure the House passed Freedom bill will keep American safe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R-KY) MAJORITY LEADER: Before scrapping an effective system that has helped protect us form attack in favor of an untried one. We should at least work towards securing some modest degree of assurance that a new system can in fact actually work. The Obama administration also already told us. It would not be able to make any firm guarantees in that regard that it would work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Critics to the bill say leaving data in the hands of private companies will slow down response times to act on potential threats.

SEN. RICHARD BURR, (R) NORTH CAROLINA: You`re moving a database, you`re making it slower. Now you`re setting up a mechanism inside to slow it down even more. What we`re doing is we`re shifting from intelligence gathering to investigations.

Nobody knows how long it`s going to take from the time we present a FISA Court with a foreign terrorist telephone number before we actually have completed a search process within this new database.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: No doubt a complicated issue with passionate views on both sides. America absolutely needs to find a way to balance civil liberties and our security. But was most important as I see it at this hour there was debate and it was being held in public, something that we have been lacking on a number of occasions.

Edward Snowden`s name was thrown out often today on the Senate floor. I have reserve commentary on him. Many people think that he is a hero. The word traitor was thrown out today. I have a hard time arguing with that.

I do know some members of the Senate intelligence community and I think information have been brought to them, this could have been handled in a totally different manner. And I think for instance maybe run wide enough. He had done with NSA was operating the way they were. He would have done something about it through channels that might not have damage our security.

President Obama feels that Snowden damage America`s security and our ability to respond. So all of us out across American tonight I guess can be so excited that yes, we`re still safe in all of our private phone information is going to stay just that way. Although do you trust the private phone companies and their some 1,400 of them in this country that we can now go and find out just who`s calling who.

And I thought that Mitch McConnell made a very profound point today. It`s not about conversation, it`s not about content, it`s not about names, it`s about the connecting of number and he`s question was. Whose civil rights and civil liberties are violated with that? And seating there watching it. I couldn`t answer that right away.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight question, "Will the USA Freedom Act make America safer?"

Go to polls.msnbc.com/ed to cast your vote. We`ll bring you the results later on in the show.

For more let me bring in Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin. Senator, good to have with us tonight. I appreciate your time.

You were one of the "No" votes today.

SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN, (D) WISCONSIN: I was.

SCHULTZ: Can you tell our audience what you`re thinking was on that. And I appreciate your time.

BALDWIN: Yes. Well, Ed. I served in the House of Representative back in 2001 when the original USA Patriot Act was brought to the floor. While I had worked on it in the House Judiciary Community and we actually have reported out bipartisan version. It was substituted in the last minute with something that Bush administration wanted and I voted "No".

And I have been very concern about the ways in which inroads checks and balances that I was concerned at the time that I could lead to government overreach. Certainly we`ve seen that with the bulk collection of this metadata and other program that have been really overreach. And I voted against the reauthorization.

Now, I will say about the USA Freedom Act. It does make some small reforms to the underlying USA Patriot Act. But they really didn`t go far enough in my mind. And I do believe it didn`t just deserve a debate in the public eye on Section 215. But there`s also other section of the USA Patriot Act that we got to be talking a closer look at.

SCHULTZ: Senator, what you`re analysis of the function of the FISA Court now that this bill is going to the President`s desk. I mean this really was the cracks of the debate in the focal point of all of these. That the FISA Court did not do what it was suppose to do that there were secret conversation amongst government officials to go do things at the FISA Court never saw, your thoughts on that.

BALDWIN: Well, I have a lot of thoughts on this FISA Court. Back again when I was serving in the House, I had hope that there would be opportunities for us even hold hearing or have conversations with some of the judges that have been in panel to served on that, to really understand their process and be able to create the types of checks and balances that you need in adversarial process.

What we do know is that the FISA Court has been one sided court. You only hear form government witnesses. This USA Freedom Act will make some changes and these reforms are important, there will be in paneled group of experts who can be brought in for novel cases. But frankly I think the American public and the constitution deserve the voice in those courts every time they meet.

SCHULTZ: OK. What about these private companies now are going to be handling this information? Are you comfortable with that?

BALDWIN: Well, they had -- the private companies handle this information and always have. And we do have choices about whether we have a cellphones, whether we have landline et cetera although most of us do. What I think is important is that we`re moving toward the system where they`re more checks and balances on the type of searches that can be done on these type of records. That is moving in the right direction but I am still not convinced that we`ve gone far enough. And if I might go back to that original concern, set of concern I had about the USA Patriot Act.

I think the blurs the lines between what the forth amendment guarantees in terms of probably cause for a warrant to surveil U.S. citizens. And this much lower relevant to an investigation standard. It`s a slippery slope. But I think we`ve seen that has cause problems in the years since the original passage of the USA Patriot Act.

SCHULTZ: And finally Senator tonight. Are you comfortable at heart that we`re safer?

BALDWIN: You know, a certainly for a lot of reasons we`re safer since 9/11. We learned a lot. The 9/11 commission thought us a lot. We have lot recommendations. And so from many reasons, but I have still to this day concerns about provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Some that we`re before us in this debate on the Senate floor today, but some that weren`t before us, again the Section 702 of underlying USA Patriot Act that won`t sunset for a couple of years yet. We still have to debate those provisions.

SCHULTZ: OK, Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, good to have you with us tonight.

BALDWIN: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: I appreciate your time. Thank you.

For more let me bring in Congressman Jim Mcdermott of Washington, Congressman, good to have you with us. You voted in favor the USA Freedom Act. In fact they were 387 other members of the House who voted for that was an overwhelming support and today it seemed like Republicans were against Republicans on this.

But Congressman, I want to ask you about one of the things that came out on the Senate floor today that the chairman of Senate intel committee. Mr. Burr says that the response time is going to be reduced. If that`s the case I find it hard to believe that Americans would be OK, with that. I want your reaction.

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT, (D) WASHINGTON: Well, there are always choices to be made in a democracy. And people can give the government wide open access and there`ll be no delay whatsoever. There be none that they claim there`s a delay cause by anybody but their own ineptitude, so.

SCHULTZ: So, how this work. Is the NSA go to a phone company say Verizon and say "Hey, we have got to have these records right now. Is that the expediency is this going to be OK?

MCDERMOTT: My understanding is when they want to put a wiretap on somebody or want to surveil. They have to go the FISA Court and explain why they`re doing it. And if that`s what they`re -- I think we`re entitled to make the government say why they want to look into our lines.

SCHULTZ: OK.

MCDERMOTT: Now, for most of us it doesn`t make any difference. But if we give it a way because we think it only goes to the dead guys, strange things begin to happen.

SCHULTZ: Well, Congressman I was under the impression that the NSA can do what they want, but they have to notify and get authority from the FISA Court within the number of hours after the wiretapping. You know, because of expediency because they don`t want to be delayed if they think that they`ve got a beat on the terrorist. They got to get the information as quickly as possible. But they have to go back in the FISA Court to make sure that all the, you know, teams across and eyes dotted (ph). What about that. Is that change?

MCDERMOTT: My understanding is that they still have access to gathering data. But they do have to clear through the FISA Court. Now whether it`s before or immediately after, I`m not absolutely certain. But the fact is that there has to be some oversight on our intelligence agencies. They`re gathering up everything including the phone calls of the Prime Minister of Germany. You know, that`s way too far and I think we ought to all as Americans be worried about our government getting all the information about us, without us knowing it.

I had a young woman come up to me one day. This is 10 years ago. Her parents had come from Iran. The government was covering their phone calls and came to the House and said to their mother "Why are calling to Iran?" They had an aunt who is sick there. That kind of stuff does not in my view rise to the level of the government right to in truly into our life. These were American citizens, had been born in Iran but they were being surveilled by our government without their knowledge.

SCHULTZ: OK.

MCDERMOTT: That`s not fair.

SCHULTZ: So, the final judgment here, today now that this is going to President`s desk. Is that this is going to stop the government overreach. And this is going to stop the evasion of privacy by government officials. Yet, it`s going to keep America safe, correct?

MCDERMOTT: That`s it, yes. I mean that`s what we`re all striving for. We want to keep America safe. We don`t want to do anything that makes us at risk. But the other thing is we want to protect American`s right to their privacy, to their alienable right to not be accused without having somebody have to go and demonstrate why they gather this information.

SCHULTZ: Well, the Republican as I said in my open tonight, I`ve always been for privatization, now they`ve got it. We`ll see how it goes.

MCDERMOTT: I share with Tammy. Some of the peers I voted for bill.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

MCDERMOTT: I voted against the Patriot Act and the extension of Patriot Act. But I voted for this because it moved back a little bit in the right direction.

SCHULTZ: OK, Congressman.

MCDERMOTT: Was part of (ph).

SCHULTZ: Congressman Jim Mcdermott always a pleasure. Good to have you with us.

MCDERMOTT: See you again.

SCHULTZ: Thanks so much.

Remember to answer tonight`s question at polls.msnbc.com/ed. We`ll have the result for you right after this break. You can continue to vote throughout the show. Follow us on Facebook. Watch my Facebook featured "Give me a minute". You can get my video Podcast at WeGotEd.com.

Coming up, Rand Paul predicts a Fast-Track victory as the White House struggles to find Democratic support in the House. I`ll talk with Congressman Keith Ellison coming up.

And later, Warren supporters well they accepted defeat to the senator just it`s going to run in 2016. Find out why they still are declaring victory.

Stay with us. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And we are back on the Ed Show.

Union workers were activist today. They demand transparency on the TPP. They called on the U.S. trade office to declassified TPP during a demonstration in Washington. The trade office kept them locked out and there was no response.

Wikileaks began a fundraising campaign to reveal the secret chapters of the trade deal. They`ll offer $100,000 reward for the classified chapters.

Medicare advocates are railing against Fast-Track legislation. Fast-Track is tied to the trade adjustment assistance program which of course helps works who lose their jobs because of bad trade deals. The program gets funding by rating Medicare dollars.

Paul Ryan Congressman and Chairman of the House weigh in means committee says passing Fast-Track in the House will be a breeze.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) WISCONSIN: I believe that the House will past it very soon. We plan in doing it this month in June. The Senate just past it two weeks ago with a good strong vote and I think we will also had a good bipartisan vote here in the House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: The President doesn`t think so. The White House is engaging in a full court press on House Democrats. In fact President Obama is making campaign promises to House Democrats to turn their vote. The President could need some two dozen Democrats to pass Fast-Track. It`s going to be close. 14 Democrats back the legislation currently. Voting on trade promotion authority could happen later this month as Congressman Ryan said, depending on who you talk to. You just don`t know how this vote is going to go.

Joining me tonight, Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Congressman, good to have you with us. I know that you are a no vote on Fast-Track and.

REP. KEITH ELLISON, (D) MINNESOTA: That`s right.

SCHULTZ: We`ve talked about this we had a sit down group of you Democrats who are clearly against this for all the reasons of when it comes to jobs. Why is Fast-Track taking Medicare dollars? This is a new twist in all of these that could raise the ire of a lot of people. What`s happening here?

ELLISON: Well, quite frankly it`s outrageous. So trade adjustment assistance is the assistance that displace the workers can get when they are thrown off their jobs by trade deals that undermine their current jobs in the U.S. and those jobs are off short. That when they.

SCHULTZ: So, where should that money come from Congressman?

ELLISON: Where does it come from the people who`re going to make all that money on the Trans-Pacific Partnership? The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an investment deal which will make fabulous amounts of wealth. It will make the multinationals even richer than they are now and yet they will want to pay for the displaced workers that they are going to create. They`re actually taking from the workers retirement, healthcare fund, Medicare in order to pay for trade adjustment assistance. I think Ed, it as absolutely wrong and I hope the seniors know all about it and hope organizations stand up for senior`s outrage because I am. It`s hard to believe.

SCHULTZ: So with this in a sense just be another nail on the coffin for Medicare financially? This would be another strain on that resource. No doubt.

ELLISON: Absolutely, but you know, haven`t seem like every few months, we`re looking for ways to a paper step out of the Medicare. We recently went and do the doctor pays (ph) out of Medicare. I mean the fact is Medicare is an important program to help seniors cover medical cost and we should not be raiding it every time we want to pay for something but, your question to me is actually the right question. Multinationals will benefit hands only from Trans-Pacific Partnership that`s who`ve benefit it from South Korea trade deal, that`s who`ve benefit it from Columbia, that`s who`ve benefit from NAFTA, not the workers.

SCHULTZ: OK.

ELLISON: Why shouldn`t they pay for it?

SCHULTZ: Well, they should pay for it. There`s no question about it. Now, my sources are telling me that the White House is pulling out all stocks that the President is making campaign promises. Do you know that? Are you aware of that? Can you confirm it? And do you think the Democrats will stand firm for workers in this country and not allow this to go through?

ELLISON: I believe that workers know that their oath and their commitment is to the people they represent. The average person will not benefit from this trade deal so I think despite he White House`s persuasive efforts, they will not work because people have to face the voters and also beyond voters. People really do serve to serve and not so they can just get on air force one or some other goodies or anything like that. I think that Congress is going to hold firm and the President is go way back to the drawing board and figure out how to get a trade deal that is actually going to increase workers and increase American jobs.

SCHULTZ: And finally, do you think your colleagues will hold the line because right now...

ELLISON: Yes.

SCHULTZ: ... the vote were taken right now, it would be a no.

ELLISON: I believe in my co-work colleagues, I believe that their commitment is to their constituents.

SCHULTZ: OK.

ELLISON: And to the people who work on there district everyday.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, good to have you with us. I appreciate it very much.

ELLISON: Yes, sir.

SCHULTZ: I want to bring in Larry Cohen, President of the Communication Workers of America.

Mr. Cohen I want to play this sound bite for assistant Congressman Paul Ryan. He had a message for unions who are against the TPP. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) WISCONSIN: And the why I say the union is this right now, a very big company, if they want to sell it to another country, they go make it in that country. They set up a factory in that country, outsource jobs into that country. Getting a trade agreement means you will limit those barriers that allow you to make it in America and send it overseas because you removed the trade barriers that prohibit that from happening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Mr. Cohen your response.

LARRY COHEN, PRESIDENT CWA: Yeah, my response is that very little of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is about trade barriers 75 percent of the chapters are about protecting multinational investors as Keith Ellison just said. The companies directly (ph) reach on this are the ones that move jobs from the United States to countries like Vietnam would guarantees that Vietnam will do nothing to change labor right or environmental rights and damage the profits of those companies. That`s the investor-state dispute settlement that guarantees those future profits.

So he has got it exactly backwards, no surprise because he takes his instructions from the U.S. of Chamber Commerce, that`s his audience. It`s not American working class people.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Cohen, what about the president`s activities. His lobbying efforts, his arm twisting and how, what a fever pitch attitude, the White House has got right now that turn these Democrats, describe it.

COHEN: Well, it`s very disappointing to me. He`s basically saying, "I`ll be there in your campaign if you`re there now for me even though he is the leader the Democratic Party, controls the Democratic National committee an 85 percent even by White House count of House Democrats are voting no, 85 percent. So, we have Boehner trade here in Fast-Track. It`s not Obama trade. The Fast-Track is Boehner trade and he is uniting with Boehner against his own caucus and then seeing if he can pick off 10 or 15 Democrats from the 160 or so that are definitely voting no. It`s a sad day for all of us.

SCHULTZ: All right. Larry Cohen, President of the Communication Workers, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time and of course tomorrow Wednesday is going to be a big day in Washington when it comes to activism. It`s going to be over a million phone calls representatives advocating a no vote on fast tracks.

Still to come, Hillary Clinton dips in the poll. The Rapid Response Panel weighs in on the latest numbers in the impact of the progressive movement on the 2016 race.

And next, the TSA is under fire for horrible security practices. We`ll have the detail on the agencies internal investigation.

Stay with us. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And we are back on the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight.

It`s been a turbulent 24 hours for the nation`s airline industry. Government sources say at least five flights received bomb threats today that were phone in. An American airline plane landed safely in Philadelphia and was met by emergency crews. Official say none of those threats were considered credible.

Also today, the acting head of the TSA was reassigned. The move comes after an internal investigation by the Department of Homeland Security finding failures at dozens of airports.

NBC`s Brian Moore has the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN MOORE, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Acting TSA Chief Melvin Carraway is off the job today. Reassign after airport screeners around the country flunk the critical test.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, (D) NEW YORK: The results are astounding, troubling and demand not just a minor response from the TSA, but a top-to-bottom examination and overhaul.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Its government and its worst and -- it should be government in its best.

MOORE: Government agents successfully smuggled markets (ph), explosives, weapons and other contraband through security in 67 out of 70 cases, a shocking 95 percent failure rate.

BRUCE SCHNEIER, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER RESILIENT SYSTEMS: The story is different that it`s a broad number of airports. It`s a lot more tests. It really shows that the problem is everywhere.

MOORE: Former TSA Chief John Pistole says that government testers as so called Red Team are experts at finding and exploiting airport weaknesses and they have inside information on TSA protocols.

JOHN PISTOLE, FORMER TSA ADMINISTRATOR: It makes it a challenge, but TSA needs to be up to that challenge to address that potential one in a billion terrorist.

MOORE: A test designed to make airport safer, not exactly boosting confidence in the TSA.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: That was NBC`s Brian Moore reporting tonight.

And still ahead, Elizabeth Warren`s supporters declare victory even though she`s not running for president.

And later, the head of FIFA resigned says the international soccer scandal unfolds to a new chapter.

Stay tuned. You`re watching the Ed Show on MSNBC. We`ll be right back.

Meanwhile, factory orders fell in April for the 8th time in 9 months. The Economists expected a flat rating.

That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, HOST OF "TODAY SHOW": Are you going to run for president?

WARREN: No. I`m not running and I`m not going to run

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, she was telling the truth. Welcome back to the Ed Show.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been firmed about her decision not to run for president in 2016. Now a group asking the Massachusetts Senator run is flat out calling in quits. The "Run Warren Run" campaign says it will suspend operations on June 8th. The group says it respects the Senator`s decision not to run in 2016 and could regroup if she changes her mind. The group says it still declaring a victory. Saying Warren`s agenda and message have transformed the American political landscape.

Progressives are looking for a candidate with clear positions on economic issues. Unlike Warren, Hillary Clinton has pretty much sidestep major issues like the TPP and it could be affecting her in the polls. The latest Washington Post ABC News poll has Clinton with an eight point advantage over Jeb Bush, 49 percent to 41 percent. But Clinton support has dropped five percent in the last two months.

Potential voters are also questioning her credibility. 52 percent of those polls don`t think Hillary Clinton is trustworthy, most American side with Elizabeth Warren when it comes to money in politics. 84 percent of Americans think money has way too much influence in political campaigns. According to a New York Times CBS poll, 78 percent say spending by outside groups should be limited.

Joining me tonight on a Rapid Response panel Bob Shrum Democratic Strategist and Warshaw Professor of Politics at USC, Genevieve Wood also with us tonight Senior Contributor with the Daily Signal. OK, lots to unpack here.

My gosh, when I saw that this group was saying, "OK, we`re going to slow things down disband of June 8". I thought well, that was quick." That`s my first reaction. How bad that they really want her to run as opposed to having Warren say some things at the Progressive Movement wanted to hear? Bob Shrum, your thoughts.

BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think, they wanted her to run but she said all along she wasn`t going to run. I think there were some other intervening events. Bernie Sanders entered the race, got a real response.

And you`re right, Hillary Clinton hasn`t taken positions on some of these issues yet and she hasn`t filled in the details but she went out there with her own kind of broadly populous appeal. I think it`s not a matter of being quick here. I think these folks hold on for a long time. I think the signal kept being sent from Elizabeth Warren that she wasn`t going to run and I think that was it.

SCHULTZ: Genevieve, do you think Warren deserves a lot of credit? I mean has she had that much of an impact on the race or should I say they run up to the conversation?

GENEVIEVE WOOD, THE DAILY SIGNAL: Well, I do think she`s had an impact and maybe this group you could say it had an impact. And look, they`re not going to completely go away. They`re just going to say they were not going to keep putting their money behind a name Elizabeth Warren. But they`re going to keep putting their money behind the issues that they wanted her to run on. If they`re worried, I think that Hillary may not at least be a vocal proponent of. And so, I think there still going to be in the play.

But look, Bernie Sanders came on to the set. I think he`s had a little bit better reception than maybe many on the left or the right thought he might get. He`s taking up some of the kind of same talking points at issues that Elizabeth Warren probably would have talked about.

So, I think, increasingly, you have to make a call. It doesn`t make this keep putting money behind somebody who`s not going to run or do we put our money behind the issues we want to make front center in the campaign.

SCHULTZ: Well, the issues are helping Bernie Sanders. I mean, we`re early on here. He`s already doubled in his numbers and Hillary is moving down a little bit not much. I don`t know what that means this early on but the fact is, you know, Bernie Sanders is drawing crowds that many people haven`t seen this early in the process, Bob Shrum. I mean.

WOOD: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: There is no doubt that he is in the long hall going to have an impact here. What is it?

SHRUM: Well, I think he`s touched the nerve with people. He`s gone up to 18-20 percent in his Iowa polls. He`s very popular by the way in the western part of New Hampshire with the Burlington media market. His media market means that voters are very well acquainted with him.

But I think we`re only half right here about what Hillary`s problem is. I think there was an assumption that somehow that she was vaccinated against this so called scandal stories, the voters after 23 years didn`t care. Well, it turns out maybe they do.

And I think part of the problem here has been that her soft launch was fine but it went on too long. It left a vacuum. It got filled by e-mails, by stories about the Clinton Foundation and by Bernie Sanders. And what she has to do, she has these rallies coming up in the middle of this month. She has to go out there. She has to take tough positions. She has to let people know where she stands. She has to energize herself and energize the voters and give them a reason to be for. These rallies really have to rally people.

SCHULTZ: So, how important Bob Shrum would be if Elizabeth Warren picked a candidate? I mean if you listen to Elizabeth Warren, you listen to Bernie Sanders, you listen to Hillary Clinton. I think most progressives out there would say "Well, Warren and Sanders are pretty close to one another closer than Clinton what do you make at that. I mean how important it is Elizabeth Warren going to be in this process?

SHRUM: Well, I don`t know that she`s going to endorse. She may endorse at some point I think she would be one of those few endorsements that`s actually very valuable. I mean Ted Kennedy made an enormous difference for John Kerry in 2004 and for Barack Obama in 2008. So, I think her voice would be heard. I think she would have a real influence.

WOOD: Well, I mean I could be wrong in this. But I think Elizabeth Warren signed on to something months ago or maybe is over year ago encouraging Senator Hillary Clinton at that time to run. So, she already kind of on record without but to look I agree with Bob on this. I think Hillary Clinton`s problem is that she`s doesn`t really have anybody after cheering her own. I mean she doesn`t have the base of the Democratic Party cheering because frankly she`s not saying what most of them want to hear. She`s not really saying anything so until she gets out there.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

WOOD: . for making some statement and then as he said having some pep rallies I think she`s got it trouble. But look I will say I think this polls say something when you all of a sudden -- when the only thing going up for you as your unfavorability rating. That`s not a good thing for somebody who so many already know. I mean that increasingly becomes difficult to change. And look, she still ahead on most Republicans she match wrap (ph) with yes. But even those numbers are getting a little bit tighter. I don`t think it`s a good trend for Hillary right now. But there`s obviously plenty of time.

SCHULTZ: But we all know that Hillary is going to take Wall Street money. We all know that there`s going to be super packs involved. When we all know.

WOOD: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: . how the American people right now feel about money and politics. In fact the poll I was quoting the same New York town poll, that found a majority of people think that money has too much influence in politics. More than half of those surveyed said that their pessimistic about whether changes are going to be fixed, or changes are going to be made no matter who the heck the president is.

WOOD: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: So, is this something that Hillary Clinton can tackle on the campaign trail the same way of Bernie Sanders could, Bob?

SHRUM: Sure. I think she can, I`m not one of those people I have been in this campaigns who believes that you can unilaterally disarmed. But if Jeb Bush for example, if he`s the Republican nominee or Marco Rubio is going to have to a multi hundred million dollars super pack out there that you can compete. If somehow or other, you don`t have a super pack out there which incidentally will be funded not just Wall Street and some of the people on Wall Street or Democrats.

But by a lot of individual donations which is what Barack Obama did in 2008. But first Sander said and then Hillary said that they`re going to have a litmus test for the Supreme Court. You had to be a justice who would vote to overturn Citizens United. There were a lot of marked cores (ph) in the commentary at. The truth is there`s always a litmus test.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SHRUM: Bill Clinton was never going to appoint someone who to the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn Robin (ph) way nor was Barack Obama. And George Bush was never going to appoint someone who would vote to overturn Robin (ph) way. The fact is that what we`re facing here is a fundamental question are we going to be a democracy or we`re going to be a super pack accuracy (ph) run by the Koch brothers.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SHRUM: That`s the no question.

WOOD: So come on hold, hold on, hold on let`s be clear. I mean and I understand that most of the people at in the polls whether Democrats or Republic as they thought there were too much money in politics. But I think part of that because people have no idea how much money out there period. But if you look it like that the 2012, 2013 we send over $140 billion in this country on advertising, over 6 billion of which was for food and candy. President run 2012, $7 billion was spent in the election. So, I don`t think 7 billion is too much to spend when you`re spending.

SHRUM: I don`t either I don`t either.

WOOD: . 6 billion.

SHRUM: ... but I think $1 billion.

WOOD: On advertising candy.

SHRUM: $1 billion from two brothers named Koch is tremendously subversive of democracy.

WOOD: But everybody knows who that is. I mean I think that is the

SHRUM: But those ads go on the air people -- they don`t say this was brought you by the Koch brother.

WOOD: Even because bigger money

SHRUM: They say this is brought to you by Americans for prosperity.

SCHULTZ: All right.

WOOD: Because in money your talking about in the much smaller.

SCHULTZ: And we`ll bring it we`ll leave it there.

WOOD: . part of the.

SCHULTZ: And we`ll bring it back on another day.

WOOD: All right.

SCHULTZ: Great to have both of you with us, Bob Shrum.

SHRUM: OK, thank you.

SCHULTZ: Genevieve Wood thanks so much.

Still to come, a big shake up to the international sports world. We`ll look at what the resignation of the FIFA president Sepp Blatter means in the wake of the soccer organizations bribery scandal.

Stay with us. We`re right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And back on the Ed show.

The numbers haven`t change too much on the last half hour. Here are the results on tonight`s Bing Pulse polls. Tonight`s question, "Will the USA Freedom Act make Americas safer?

28 percent of you say "Yes", 72 percent of you you`re not buying it. Keep voting until the end of the hour. At polls.msnbc.com/ed that would be me. Welcome back. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And in tonight`s two minute drill. Yesterday we did a little fish now we`re going do a little football. A Vikings home coming, I`m all about it. Adrian Peterson returns to the Vikings practice here earlier today. In his first time -- it`s first time he`s been with the team since the Vikings 2014 suspension for reckless or negligent injury of a child. Earlier today Peterson said he learns he lesson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADRIAN PETERSON, PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER: I`ve learned a lot from my mistake and I`m moving forward. The first person that I apologized to was my son.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: The running back and complained about his contract on Twitter last week. The tweets filled speculation about his place in the 2015 season. Peterson put those rumors to bed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETERSON: I`m happy where I`m at here at the Minnesota Vikings.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: That`s the best news the Vikings have had in a long time.

Stick around more coming up in the Ed show. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And finally tonight scandal and corruption continue to rock the world of International Soccer. In a surprise announcement today Sepp Blatter FIFA`s president, announce that he is stepping down. One week ago Blatter was elected for his 5th term.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEPP BLATTER, FIFA PRESIDENT: I will call an extraordinary Congress and put at disposal my function. It is going to be held as soon as possible and a new president will be elected to follow me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Blatter had previously said that he would not leave office despite recent scandals. Just a short time ago The New York Times reported that Blatter is a focus of a federal corruption investigation, so there`s a new twist to at all.

Authorities believe Blatter`s top deputy transferred millions of dollars in alleged bribe money. This bombshell announcement comes after 9:00. FIFA officials and 5 corporate executives were indicted for corruption by the United States Department of Justice. The arrests are the culmination of a three year investigation by the FBI. The 14 people faced charges of racketeering, conspiracy and corruption.

I`m joined tonight by a Stellar reporter and that is David Scott correspondent for HBO Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. And of course, your program and your reporting really broke a lot of this wide open about the way they were constructing the stadiums and the workers rights and what not and this is just evolved into something that`s just huge.

First of all David, thanks for being here. What is your response to Blatter this announcement today?

DAVID SCOTT, CORRESPONDENT HBO REAL SPORT: Well, I think, now we know that he understands himself to be a target of the investigation. There`s one thing that this FIFA leadership is consistent about is that they can see nothing without extreme pressure and they`re getting plenty out of it from the U.S. government at the moment.

SCHULTZ: Is it that they`re just so big? It takes something like this to rock their world so to speak.

SCOTT: Well, for a long time, the problem was there was no controlling authority over FIFA. Exit (ph) themselves and suddenly there weren`t policing themselves, the Swiss government wasn`t especially aggressive about it. And so, this is I think comes as a great surprise to them, you know, we`re all surprise but I think they are truly genuinely shocked by it.

SCHULTZ: Does this change future location at all of the organization with World Cup competition?

SCOTT: That`s one of the great questions now to see what happens with 2018, the Russia games and with 2022, the Qatar games or Qatar games. And I think, nobody knows he had this probably too soon to tell how they would reverse those actions now is all noble ground.

SCHULTZ: So, where does the Swiss investigation land in all of these now that the Justice Department has been so aggressive? What`s the Swiss investigation potentially going to add to this?

SCOTT: Well, it be interesting to see if the Swiss dig into FIFA`s books. I mean, in some ways, the Swiss are the most logical jurisdiction to exercise control over FIFA. They have so far chosen not to do it but the U.S. was successful in getting the cooperating in this investigation and perhaps other jurisdictions are now looking at it as well.

SCHULTZ: Now, you traveled to Qatar and interviewed the head of the Qatar Aspire Sport`s Complex about the conditions workers face building stadiums. Here`s a clip I want to play.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KHALID ABDULLAH AL-SULAITEEN, CEO OF ASPIRE ZONE: Do you want to see them living in a very, you know, comfortable, healthy environment?

SCOTT: Comfortable and healthy.

SULAITEEN: Of course.

SCOTT: I want to say this Mr.

SULAITEEN: Living in a very healthy environment and (inaudible).

SCOTT: Mr. Al-Sulaiteen with all due respect. We have gone to the camps.

SULAITEEN: You went yourself?

SCOTT: Yes, this week in Doha. We you have hundreds of thousands of men living in labor camps. Some of them packed into small rooms, eight men to a room like the one we saw. Ten men sharing the toilet, no showers, why is it necessary to keep these men in camps at all?

SULAITEEN: And this is not happening in the United States, do you think?

SCOTT: We don`t have labor.

SULAITEEN: Well, you have is...

SCOTT: ... labor camps?

SULAITEEN: No, no. I`m not talking about labor camps, but issues of labor all over the world.

SCOTT: Have you been to the labor camps yourself, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not going to answer your questions.

SCOTT: You don`t want to answer that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Of course, I don`t want to answer it.

SCOTT: With that we told the interview was over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: That had to be rather interesting.

SCOTT: Very interesting. And when you think about how much FIFA would have had to overlook to give the games to Qatar there the scorching desert heat when we were there was 117 degrees it was last July when the World Cup is usually played. No soccer tradition to speak. Qatar`s never feel that a team that could qualify in the World Cup and worst of all this industrial scale migrant labor system into which hundreds of thousands of men are (inaudible) frankly got all (ph).

SCHULTZ: Do you have confidence that things will change now?

SCOTT: I`m not quite there yet. I think, you know, Blatter`s departure, you know, could signal the, you know, those are meaningful reform that, you know, many of us have looked on and hope for. But think about of that. If we believe that the corruption inside FIFA is so systematic and so endemic, then, it`s going to take a lot more than his departure to make change in that culture. And when you think of who is voting for his replacement. These are the executive committee or ExCo members that are themselves the beneficiary of the corrupt system. So, it remains to be seen how far people will really change.

SCHULTZ: In the Women`s World Cup kicks off in Canada this weekend. Your thoughts.

SCOTT: You know, I think, for a long time, FIFA has really written on the love of the game internationally. People love the game. It seems to be the thing that brings us back to the screen and overlook and gives us the ability to overlook FIFA`s, you know, many warts. And so, I imagine that people will tune in and enjoy the games and like we always do.

SCHULTZ: David Scott, good to have you with us. Thanks so much. I appreciate your time tonight.

SCOTT: Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: And that is the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.

PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now.

Good evening, Rev.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>